Bullbars

russhenn · Veteran Member

Bullbars

Cupie · Guru

Hi ...

I certainly will put in my two bob's worth .. In favour of retaining bullbars.

ps. The site is currently 'parked'. So I have bookmarked it & marked my calendar for later access.

-- Edited by Cupie on Tuesday 25th of January 2011 05:24:55 PM

blaze · Guru

Now being 50 yo , hoping thats not old, but any way when I was younger my mum and dad taught me to
STOP, LOOK LEFT AND RIGHT AND THEN LEFT AGAIN, NOW PROCEED WITH CAUTION.
See we didnt walk around (and still dont) texting or talking on phones or wjth ipod things stuck in are ear we paid attention to our surrounds. Plenty of things bolted to the front of vehicles in them days that were far worse than a bullbar
cheers
blaze

jimricho · Guru

blaze wrote:

Now being 50 yo , hoping thats not old, but any way when I was younger my mum and dad taught me to
STOP, LOOK LEFT AND RIGHT AND THEN LEFT AGAIN, NOW PROCEED WITH CAUTION.
See we didnt walk around (and still dont) texting or talking on phones or wjth ipod things stuck in are ear we paid attention to our surrounds. Plenty of things bolted to the front of vehicles in them days that were far worse than a bullbar
cheers
blaze

Yes but that was before the era of the Nanny State

Nicholstones · Guru

I'm in my early 50s and a Victorian. I remember when I was about 13 years old the Sun newspaper had a campaign 'Declare War on 1034'. That was the number of road fatalities there had been in Victoria the previous year. In 2010 the Victorian road toll was 291. Maybe the much derided 'nanny state' has a few good points.

Sandra K · Senior Member

The Navara would look ordinary without the bullbar.

jimricho · Guru

Nicholstones wrote:

I'm in my early 50s and a Victorian. I remember when I was about 13 years old the Sun newspaper had a campaign 'Declare War on 1034'. That was the number of road fatalities there had been in Victoria the previous year. In 2010 the Victorian road toll was 291. Maybe the much derided 'nanny state' has a few good points.

There were a lot less vehicles on the road too, so yes, there has been a huge improvement.

Since those days the introduction of RBTs, seat belts, better roads, better designed vehicles have all contributed to the reduction in road tolls without unduly restricting or inconveniencing motorists and I don't consider these measures to be Nanny State stuff either.

It becomes Nanny State stuff when the do-gooders want to impose their ideologies in a manner that's unlikely to have much effect on outcomes but significantly imposes restrictions.

I would venture to say that most serious pedestrian accidents that involve bull bars would have had just as serious outcomes without the bullbar. One to two tons of vehicle hitting a pedestrian is going to do a lot of damage to the pedestrian, with or without bullbar. I'll hold to this view until someone produces verifiable "real world" (not hypothetical) statistical evidence to the contrary.

(edit to correct typo)

-- Edited by jimricho on Wednesday 26th of January 2011 08:09:41 AM

bill12 · Guru

Solution! keep out of the citys as much as possible.I built my bullbar, and after a few meetings with cows and kangaroos, I would feel naked without it. Its some greenie push for us all to ride horses andlive in grass huts,except them.You,ve got to laugh- I live on an island with 25klms of road, and the coppers put the only elecric car off the road as it doesn,t have an australian design sticker on it.Good for California, but not Magnetic is. You,ve got the worry about the sanity of some people, sometimes.

Cupie · Guru

jimricho wrote:

.
There were a lot less vehicles on the road too, so yes, there has been a huge improvement.

Since those days the introduction of RBTs, seat belts, better roads, better designed vehicles have all contributed to the reduction in road tolls without unduly restricting or inconveniencing motorists and I don't consider these measures to be Nanny State stuff either.

It becomes Nanny State stuff when the do-gooders want to impose their ideologies in a manner that's unlikely to have much effect on outcomes but significantly imposes restrictions.

I would venture to say that most serious pedestrian accidents that involve bull bars would have had just as serious outcomes without the bullbar. One to two tons of vehicle hitting a pedestrian is going to do a lot of damage to the pedestrian, with or without bullbar. I'll hold to this view until someone produces verifiable "real world" (not hypothetical) statistical evidence to the contrary.

(edit to correct typo)

-- Edited by jimricho on Wednesday 26th of January 2011 08:09:41 AM

Here Here!

_wombat_ · Master (of Mischief)

Filled in the survey, all 4x4 drivers should complete the survey, only takes a few mins

www.4wdcouncil.com.au

jandas fun · Guru

That's a No from me as well. Common sense to prevail. I have seen some home made jobs that verge on the ridiculous.

Johnw

Nicholstones · Guru

From some of the frenzied comments here it seems that no-one has actually gone off and read the discussion paper (available at http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/environment/files/Pedestrian_safety_RIS_PUBLIC_CONSULT_FINAL.pdf).

It is completely untrue that 'Adoption of the overseas rules will make it impossible to fit bull and nudge bars, it may also ban winches and driving lights' as claimed in the initial post. In fact, the paper favours encouraging urban drivers to fit nudge bars instead of bull bars, and leans towards the adoption of information campaigns to assist people to decide whether they really need a metal bull bar, should fit a more pedestrian friendly polymer bull bar or should be encouraged not to fit one at all. It also considers whether there should be different rules for different sorts of vehicles, with more lenient rules for 4-wds than for passenger cars.

I strongly suggest that anyone who has a genuine interest in this subject should have a look at the discussion paper, with special reference to Section 9.9 and Appendix 11. Then by all means submit your comments. But I doubt whether merely trying to block something that hasn't even been suggested will add anything to the discussion.

Gerty Dancer · Guru

Thank you Nicholstones! That was a huge amount of reading, in the end I just checked the parts you mentioned. Wonder if the WA newspaper reporter read it?

On the subject of bullbars supposedly protecting the vehicle on which they are installed-- 20 years ago my Falcon sedan was hit from behind by a Nissan 4WD with a bull-bar. The damage to the 4WD was much greater as the bull-bar broke and tore through the bodywork of his vehicle! (My car was parked at the time, and he was DUI, nobody hurt)

brickies · Guru

You must not let the truth get in the road of a good story , there is always another side to most stories thanks Nicholstones

_wombat_ · Master (of Mischief)

This subject comes up on a regular basis here in WA, and it usually gets knocked on the head because most of the pollies have 4x4's with bull bars as their private vechicles.

Cruising Granny · Guru

I have a Smart Bar on Rosy, and after experiencing its effectiveness in a crash I wouldn't have anything else.
If I'd had a steel or alloy bull bar fitted my Landcruiser could have been written off.
I don't have a winch but I do have driving lights fitted to the Smart Bar.
The bracket holding the UHF aerial could do some damage I suppose.
Just as Wombat says, this topic comes up regularly after some sleepy pedestrian bumps into the bull bar of a 4WD.

russhenn · Veteran Member

Ok so here is part of the RIS too.

9.5. Recommendation

Option 6: Mandatory standards under the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989 (Cth) (MVSA) is the recommended option

+

Option 6: Mandatory standards under the MVSA would be the most difficult option for the vehicle manufacturing industry. This is because it involves regulation based development and testing with forced compliance of all applicable models. Manufacturers or those importing from the European Union or Japan would have the least difficulty. Vehicles imported from these markets represent around 60 per cent of Australias passenger vehicles.

There may be a further direct cost to vehicle manufacturers - but more likely an indirect cost to aftermarket suppliers - where a Vehicle Front Protection System (VFPS) has been fitted to a vehicle. The implications of this were first raised in Section 6.6 and are discussed later in the RIS.

Now I dont know about the rest of you, but the cost of testing bars on cars is a really good way of decreasing the customers desire to have that equipment fitted. I would also determine that the cost of the test WILL be passed onto the consumer.

Interesting points used in this paper, Yes I did read it...

1 Option was to have an Ad campaign so they used the Government Ad campaign to change to Liquids, Aerosols & Gels (LAGS) to be carried on aircraft over 4 months.... cost $1,092,619 (tax payer)

VS

Mitsubishi Outlander increase in sales by 9% for having active stability control, cost not given.

They are saying that manufacturing using safety ads is better than a government campaign. Duh

The crash statics used were made on an assumption, that is the only state to have record pedestrian and cyclist injuries was Victoria so a figure was averaged out for the rest of Australia .

The number of annual fatalties and injuries for pedestrians has not changed much over the last 10 years, even though there are far more cars on the road.

While we have cyclist on the mind, (only because their numbers are used to argument this papers recommendations) the number of serious injuries to cyclists has risen drastically over the last ten from 2500 to 3800 annually. Yet nothing this RIS recommends will impact on the improvement to cyclist safety numbers.